Portal:United States House of Representatives/Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol

“ Clark was an employee of the Department of Justice, right, and his client was the people of the United States, not President Trump or anyone else. So help me understand how any attorney-client privilege could possibly be implicated when a Department of Justice official, a member of the executive branch, in the course of his professional responsibilities, is engaged in talking to his superiors or anyone else within the executive branch? ”

“ Mr. MacDougald. I think that if the committee is interested in pursuing the inquiry, balancing Mr. Clark's interests in complying with his duties as a lawyer in light of President Trump's invocation of the privilege, the fair thing do to Mr. Clark is to let the Trump v. Thompson case play out rather than badgering.
Now, if there is some alternative method of preserving the record, I'm happy to discuss that. But I think sitting here for 5 hours while counsel and committee members propound questions that we're not going to answer is not a good use of anybody's time. ”

“ And we invite the committee, as we did in the letter, to have some dialogue with us. But, pending resolution of that case, we do not think that going through that process that you described is productive or worthwhile. It is just not what we are doing.
As we say in the letter, if the committee in the meantime would like to significantly narrow the scope of the inquiry that it wishes to pursue with Mr. Clark, we are willing to discuss that and do that. I mean, if it is more narrowly focused on the events of January 6th, that's something that we can work with you on. ”

“ And we want to go through those questions, understanding that they will trigger an assertion of privilege, but we think it is important to put them to the scope of our intended areas of inquiry on the record.
Mr. MacDougald. Our position is that we have asserted the objection, and there's a pending court proceeding that will determine the contours of executive privilege with respect to the committee's investigation. And it is premature to engage in that exercise and that it is just unproductive to engage these questions. ”

“ Mr. MacDougald. Yes. That is our position, And the reason for that is that the privileges that are under the overall umbrella of executive privilege are numerous, including Presidential communications. In addition, as a Department of Justice official, there is a law enforcement privilege, law enforcement investigation privilege. There are—there is a deliberative process privilege. There are any number, not to mention the attorney–client privilege. So all of these things are applicable in this context. I understand that's disputed by the committee. ”

“ Clark, I want to give you a chance to open—to provide any opening comments you have. But I just want to make sure you know who everyone is on our side of the table.
So I'll introduce myself. I am the chief investigative counsel. With me who are senior investigative counsel; who is an investigative counsel; who are also counsel to the committee; and I see , who is the deputy staff director and chief counsel to the select committee; and who is our parliamentarian. who is a researcher, is here as well. ”

“ Do we want to recognize other members? If so, we could open the floor for discussion. I know Mr. Raskin, who's in a CBC meeting, had indicated he wanted to say something or potentially.
Does any other member wish to be heard on the objection?
Ms. Lofgren. I think it's quite clear that Mr. Clark has failed to adhere to the subpoena, the Rules of the House, the precedence in law, in statute, and is completely acting in a lawless way.
Chairman Thompson. Well, I thank the gentlelady. And the chair, at this point, is prepared to rule on the objection. ”

“ We wanted to ask him about interaction with a man named John Lott, who worked at the Department of Justice and wrote a memo that involved some allegations of voter fraud.
And we wanted to ask him about the Gohmert v. Pence litigation, the one matter in which the Department did intervene, but simply to indicate that there was no standing by the plaintiff, Congressman Gohmert, to bring that litigation. Mr. Clark actually signed the pleading indicating that the Department—the Department's view that Mr. Gohmert had no standing, and the case should be dismissed. ”

“ Those conditions are not being met, and there is pending executive privilege lawsuit that specifically refers to people in Mr. Clark's position.
And, again, Mr. MacDougald, I appreciate that that is your position. I think it's important for us, as we consider options, contempt referrals or litigation to make a record just to make sure —
Mr. MacDougald. I understand that.
— that we're clear as to what the basis of the assertion is, on what facts or communications it relies. So I don't mean to sound belligerent. I'm just trying to ensure that we understand —
Mr. MacDougald. ”

“ Mr. MacDougald. We're not willing to do that.
Well, again, this is a deposition of the select committee. I have to go through and ask some questions that will understandably prompt privilege. But, to ensure that the court ultimately or the Justice Department has a record of the subject matters and can evaluate the privilege claim, it's important for us to put those subject matters in the form of questions directly to Mr. Clark.
Mr. MacDougald. Let me confer with Mr. Clark.
Do you mind if we step out?
Yes. Of course. We'll go off the record. ”

“ We continue to develop new facts and seek documents that we haven't yet received, and that that may not ultimately be the final universe of subject matters for Mr. Clark. But that is what we intended to ask him about today.
And, of course, any other questions that would come up as a result of things that Mr. Clark told us in the deposition. ”

“ We object.
Mr. Schiff. Let the record reflect that counsel has cited no particular privilege to refuse to answer that question,
So, Mr. MacDougald, I'm just looking at the letter, again, not having a chance yet to read it carefully. And, on page 2, it says, the general category of executive privilege, the specific categories of Presidential communications, law enforcement, and deliberative process privileges, as well as attorney-client privilege, and the work product doctrine, all harmonize on this point. ”

“ We're not answering questions today. We're not producing documents today. We are leaving the door open for further dialogue about the points being raised in the letter. And I think that's the process that we ought to pursue. Now, you know, the Trump v. Thompson case will ultimately be decided one way or the other, and then we'll know where we stand on executive privilege. Both sides will know.
Mr. Schiff. Before I yield back to committee counsel, I just want to state, for the record, people in a superior position to Mr. ”

“ And so I would have the tech person set up a loaner laptop, and then I would email him the Zoom link or whatever, you know, the instrumentality was. And then I think—so that—I think he would open that account on the loaner laptop, and then, you know, connect to the court link for the argument. ”

“ Clark as the Acting Attorney General.
Finally, we wanted to ask him a series of questions about things beyond his interactions with the President. For instance, his potential involvement in meetings in advance of January 6th with campaign officials, with lawyers who purported to represent the former President, who had come up with theories as to the Vice President's authority to reject slates of electors. ”

“ And I will make that email exchange part of the record as an exhibit to the deposition.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
Earlier today, Mr. Clark's attorney, Harry MacDougald, delivered to the Select Committee a letter asserting blanket privileges and objecting to Mr. Clark's further participation in the subpoenaed deposition.
Pursuant to House Deposition Authority Regulation 7, a witness may refuse ta answer questions only to preserve a privilege. That same authority empowers the chair to rule on any objection. ”

“ And we recognize that the letter will require your study, but, you know, you've also placed me in a position where you did not give the full extension that was requested in light of personal circumstances and in light of, you know, the situation that's—I have to deal with in terms of managing life generally, and so, I think, at this point, we would like to conclude things, and that's our position. ”